5 ms·

So this is going to sound mean when I don't mean for it too, but I sort of doubt the reality of being fired for being a generalist. I just don't buy it. I total

So this is going to sound mean when I don't mean for it too, but I sort of doubt the reality of being fired for being a generalist. I just don't buy it. I totally believe that's what they /told/ him, I just don't think it's the actual truth. So far I've made a career out of being a generalist. In my experience, companies of any size love having people like that. Specialists are valuable of course, but most of the time managers end up with a broad spectrum of problems and if they can throw problems to you without wondering if you can handle it, and feel confident it's going to get done, they probably don't care that you're only 70% as efficient as the specialist.

S4M 13y ago
Exactly my thoughts. First, I doubt all companies need the best coders and designers to the point of getting rid of those who are just "average" but totally able to deliver. There would be no point in getting rid of a highly motivated employee just because he doesn't have a specialization. The worst case would be to have a chat with him and ask him to chose an area of specialization and work to improve his skills there.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Agreed; generalists are often limited in growth and cannot command the premiums of a top-of-field specialist, but I've never heard of being a generalist considered as a bad thing, the sort of thing that gets you fired. Now, if instead of a Jack-of-all-Trades you were, say, a Three-of-Spades-of-all-Trades, then yes, because you're really just equally bad at everything.
neltnerb 13y ago
I think there's an intermediate size where being a generalist is bad. I'm a generalist, and I experienced a similar situation -- I was extremely useful at the beginning because I could do a fair job of the responsibilities of three or four specialists, but after a year and a half, there were three or four specialists who could collectively do a far better job than me. The amount of tasks which made sense for me to take on dwindled, and I wasn't really needed anymore. I don't regret it or hold a grudge, it was my intent to help build a team that was better than me alone, and I succeeded in that professional goal. I trained most of them to be able to do my job, and am proud of that accomplishment. But I suspect that once the company is at 100 people instead of 20, the budget and flexibility of positions will be such to allow generalists to be more practical again. Does that make sense? I think for a 10 person team, generalists are very useful, and for a 1000 person team, generalists can be tolerated and be very versatile members who can quickly switch between roles. But I think there is an intermediate point where the company goals are still very narrow but the team is big enough that generalists are only useful in a high level management role.
- overgard 13y ago
  Interesting. I see the framework of your point and I mostly agree, but I still think that even in this sort of awkward middle period, if you're legit good, they're not even going to consider getting rid of you as a generalist. For one thing, they're going to need someone to be able to jump in and help the specialists out with the larger picture. Not to mention that often your generalists end up becoming the specialists, after dealing with certain domains long enough. If we're talking about a startup of <100 people that is healthy, they're usually in "expand" mode. You don't get rid of useful people when you're in your expand mode unless they're a problem.
  - 001sky 13y ago
    they're going to need someone to be able to jump in and help the specialists out with the larger picture Problem is, if you are a generalist (say) with <5 yes experience in total and 8 months at this firm? I'm not sure that works for anyone...in that situation. Although, I don't doubt there is more to the story. Just would be hesitant to jump to character over other consideratiosn without knowing (any, real) details.
    - alttab 13y ago
      Who is this straw man generalist? If you are even a moderately capable at many things that makes you a connector and a power broker. Without agency inside a larger organization, a generalist without enough situational acumen will fail to see their opportunities.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        The straw man is not the generalist being replaced; it is the "emeritus" advisor to the ceo job that is created out of thin air. Many young companies have execs that just don't scale as quickly as the company (for whatever reason...)[1]. Sometimes its just not teneble politically or practically for them to exert further influence, especially at the C-level. Co-founders and ex CEOs are often different, in that regards. Compare the trajectory of Jack Dorsey at Twitter to the engineer that did the original code, but was never promoted to CTO. (1) ie, You still can be a very effective "early employee" without being C-level material in your current compan. That doesn't imply lack fo competence in the work you did do; and frankly thats a reason many do change jobs.
jf22 13y ago
I agree with you. I've seen generalists with a culture and personality fit be transitioned into highly valued specialists with accessory skill sets that greatly benefited the organization. Either somebody up top didn't think this transition could happen by ignorance or by potential difficulty or there was a culture or personality mismatch.
- ndaugherty18 13y ago
  I see that but I think the problem is that some generalists don't want to specialize in anything. They hired a VP of Marketing to do the marketing yet the generalist wants to continue to help do the marketing along with a bunch of other roles they hired more specialized people for.
  - alexkorchinski 13y ago
    As mentioned above, I wrote the article. The most perplexing thing was that they hadn't yet hired specialists to fill those roles. Presumably, the new VP of Marketing (she started after I was let go) would have filled those specializations which seems like replacing a bandaid with a more robust bandage. I was perfectly happy to specialize - in fact, I had spent the last few months digging deep in landing page optimization and email marketing specifically. I know there's more to the story. I just haven't figured out what it is yet.
    - triplesec 13y ago
      Screwing you for your founding / very early stock options? Might be worth checking with a lawyer?
    - mratzloff 13y ago
      I'm guessing you had a 12-month vesting cliff.
axaxs 13y ago
Myself as well. I feel that if they have to hire specialists to work alongside me, I'm not good enough as a generalist.
whyme 13y ago
It's possible that you're both right. According to the author they had hired new management spots. It could be that this new management decided they needed certain specialists positions filled, but didn't have the budget to do so unless, of course, they could free up budget by letting others go. And that's often the problem with generalists; if they can't place you into a specific 'need' spot on the org chart then you often have a target on your head instead. In other words, maybe he didn't get fired for being a generalist, but instead was fired in favour of a hiring a specialist.
georgeecollins 13y ago
People don't usually get fired for just one reason, unless it is for something egregious like stealing. However, lots of good people get fired all the time so you can't assume one of the other reasons he got fired-- besides being generalist-- was something very bad.
mcv 13y ago
I agree. I'm not quite as much a generalist as that guy, as I'm primarily a coder, but I code anything. Recruiters prefer more specialized coders (they just want front-enders, back-enders, Java specialists, Ruby specialists), but I'm all of those things. But my skillset works very well for more technically inclined companies; I've been despite not knowing the main language I was supposed to program in, and have learned at least one new language at every job, and one new framework at every freelance gig. Lately I've noticed I'm getting better at taking on non-coding responsibilities, and I'm not seeing that hurting my hireability at all.

S4M 13y ago

Exactly my thoughts. First, I doubt all companies need the best coders and designers to the point of getting rid of those who are just "average" but totally able to deliver. There would be no point in getting rid of a highly motivated employee just because he doesn't have a specialization. The worst case would be to have a chat with him and ask him to chose an area of specialization and work to improve his skills there.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Agreed; generalists are often limited in growth and cannot command the premiums of a top-of-field specialist, but I've never heard of being a generalist considered as a bad thing, the sort of thing that gets you fired. Now, if instead of a Jack-of-all-Trades you were, say, a Three-of-Spades-of-all-Trades, then yes, because you're really just equally bad at everything.

neltnerb 13y ago

I think there's an intermediate size where being a generalist is bad. I'm a generalist, and I experienced a similar situation -- I was extremely useful at the beginning because I could do a fair job of the responsibilities of three or four specialists, but after a year and a half, there were three or four specialists who could collectively do a far better job than me. The amount of tasks which made sense for me to take on dwindled, and I wasn't really needed anymore. I don't regret it or hold a grudge, it was my intent to help build a team that was better than me alone, and I succeeded in that professional goal. I trained most of them to be able to do my job, and am proud of that accomplishment. But I suspect that once the company is at 100 people instead of 20, the budget and flexibility of positions will be such to allow generalists to be more practical again. Does that make sense? I think for a 10 person team, generalists are very useful, and for a 1000 person team, generalists can be tolerated and be very versatile members who can quickly switch between roles. But I think there is an intermediate point where the company goals are still very narrow but the team is big enough that generalists are only useful in a high level management role.

overgard 13y ago
Interesting. I see the framework of your point and I mostly agree, but I still think that even in this sort of awkward middle period, if you're legit good, they're not even going to consider getting rid of you as a generalist. For one thing, they're going to need someone to be able to jump in and help the specialists out with the larger picture. Not to mention that often your generalists end up becoming the specialists, after dealing with certain domains long enough. If we're talking about a startup of <100 people that is healthy, they're usually in "expand" mode. You don't get rid of useful people when you're in your expand mode unless they're a problem.
- 001sky 13y ago
  they're going to need someone to be able to jump in and help the specialists out with the larger picture Problem is, if you are a generalist (say) with <5 yes experience in total and 8 months at this firm? I'm not sure that works for anyone...in that situation. Although, I don't doubt there is more to the story. Just would be hesitant to jump to character over other consideratiosn without knowing (any, real) details.
  - alttab 13y ago
    Who is this straw man generalist? If you are even a moderately capable at many things that makes you a connector and a power broker. Without agency inside a larger organization, a generalist without enough situational acumen will fail to see their opportunities.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      The straw man is not the generalist being replaced; it is the "emeritus" advisor to the ceo job that is created out of thin air. Many young companies have execs that just don't scale as quickly as the company (for whatever reason...)[1]. Sometimes its just not teneble politically or practically for them to exert further influence, especially at the C-level. Co-founders and ex CEOs are often different, in that regards. Compare the trajectory of Jack Dorsey at Twitter to the engineer that did the original code, but was never promoted to CTO. (1) ie, You still can be a very effective "early employee" without being C-level material in your current compan. That doesn't imply lack fo competence in the work you did do; and frankly thats a reason many do change jobs.

jf22 13y ago

I agree with you. I've seen generalists with a culture and personality fit be transitioned into highly valued specialists with accessory skill sets that greatly benefited the organization. Either somebody up top didn't think this transition could happen by ignorance or by potential difficulty or there was a culture or personality mismatch.

ndaugherty18 13y ago
I see that but I think the problem is that some generalists don't want to specialize in anything. They hired a VP of Marketing to do the marketing yet the generalist wants to continue to help do the marketing along with a bunch of other roles they hired more specialized people for.
- alexkorchinski 13y ago
  As mentioned above, I wrote the article. The most perplexing thing was that they hadn't yet hired specialists to fill those roles. Presumably, the new VP of Marketing (she started after I was let go) would have filled those specializations which seems like replacing a bandaid with a more robust bandage. I was perfectly happy to specialize - in fact, I had spent the last few months digging deep in landing page optimization and email marketing specifically. I know there's more to the story. I just haven't figured out what it is yet.
  - triplesec 13y ago
    Screwing you for your founding / very early stock options? Might be worth checking with a lawyer?
  - mratzloff 13y ago
    I'm guessing you had a 12-month vesting cliff.

axaxs 13y ago

Myself as well. I feel that if they have to hire specialists to work alongside me, I'm not good enough as a generalist.

whyme 13y ago

It's possible that you're both right. According to the author they had hired new management spots. It could be that this new management decided they needed certain specialists positions filled, but didn't have the budget to do so unless, of course, they could free up budget by letting others go. And that's often the problem with generalists; if they can't place you into a specific 'need' spot on the org chart then you often have a target on your head instead. In other words, maybe he didn't get fired for being a generalist, but instead was fired in favour of a hiring a specialist.

georgeecollins 13y ago

People don't usually get fired for just one reason, unless it is for something egregious like stealing. However, lots of good people get fired all the time so you can't assume one of the other reasons he got fired-- besides being generalist-- was something very bad.

mcv 13y ago

I agree. I'm not quite as much a generalist as that guy, as I'm primarily a coder, but I code anything. Recruiters prefer more specialized coders (they just want front-enders, back-enders, Java specialists, Ruby specialists), but I'm all of those things. But my skillset works very well for more technically inclined companies; I've been despite not knowing the main language I was supposed to program in, and have learned at least one new language at every job, and one new framework at every freelance gig. Lately I've noticed I'm getting better at taking on non-coding responsibilities, and I'm not seeing that hurting my hireability at all.